Reliable injured-witness testimony corroborated by medical evidence sustains conviction despite hostile eyewitnesses.

On 17 September 2010, at approximately 6:30 p.m., the respondent allegedly abused complainant Raju Sahu and assaulted him and his brother-in-law, Bablesh, with a wooden stick while they were returning from Amarpur. Raju suffered injuries, including a fracture of the nasal bone.

An FIR was registered at Police Station Barhi for offences under Sections 294, 323, 325 and 506 of the IPC, and a charge-sheet was subsequently filed.

The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katni, acquitted the respondent of all charges by judgment dated 29 November 2011. The State challenged the acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

During the trial, Bablesh died before his evidence could be recorded, while the independent witnesses, Santabai and Ramcharan Sahu, turned hostile.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Raju Sahu, thereby committing an offence under Section 325 of the IPC?

Whether the acquittal of the respondent in respect of the offences under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of the IPC warranted appellate interference?

Whether, upon conviction under Section 325 of the IPC, the respondent was entitled to the benefit of probation instead of imprisonment?

The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal.

Section 325 of the IPC applies where grievous hurt is voluntarily caused; a fracture of the nasal bone constitutes grievous hurt when proved by reliable medical evidence.

The Court applied the settled evidentiary principle that the testimony of an injured witness ordinarily carries substantial evidentiary value and should not be discarded merely because independent witnesses have turned hostile, provided the testimony is reliable and corroborated by medical evidence.

The Court also applied the benefit-oriented and reformative principles underlying the Probation of Offenders Act, particularly where the offender has no established criminal antecedents, the occurrence arose from a sudden altercation, and the circumstances do not necessitate incarceration.

The Court found Raju Sahu’s testimony reliable because he consistently stated that the respondent assaulted him with a wooden stick on his nose and back, and his evidence remained materially intact during cross-examination.

This version was corroborated by Dr. Sudhir Parmar, who proved the medical report recording a fracture of the nasal bone.

The death of the second injured witness and the hostility of the independent witnesses did not undermine the prosecution case because the testimony of the surviving injured witness was independently supported by medical evidence.

Accordingly, the prosecution established the offence under Section 325 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

However, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Sections 294, 323 and 506 beyond reasonable doubt.

Considering the passage of time, the absence of previous criminal antecedents, the sudden nature of the altercation, and the parties’ prior acquaintance and local relationship, the Court considered probation appropriate rather than imprisonment.

The acquittal was set aside to the extent that it concerned the offence under Section 325 of the IPC, and the respondent was convicted for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.

His acquittal under Sections 294, 323 and 506 of the IPC was affirmed.

The respondent was released on probation of good conduct for one year upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹20,000 with one solvent surety in the like amount, subject to maintaining peace and good behaviour.

If he failed to furnish the bond and surety within two months of service of the order, he was directed to undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of ₹1,000, with an additional one month’s rigorous imprisonment in default of payment.

Breach of the bond conditions or failure to maintain good conduct would result in his being taken into custody to undergo the prescribed sentence.